A Constructive Analysis on the Meaning of Justice

Justice. When we hear this word, what do we think of? The definition is entirely subjective, but we’ll be comparing two popular standpoints for the sake of analysis. 

Moral Justice

Moral justice quantifies the idea that all authoritative action should be grounded in what is morally right. For example, the law should be adjusted to accommodate those in extreme situations and take into account the good of the individual. 

However, this line of reasoning has a multitude of flaws. First, the idea of right and wrong is entirely subjective to the situation, so we can’t logically create a set of laws that apply to everyone. From this, we can assume that nothing will ever be entirely morally just, as the impacts differ depending on the person. For example, one may say that it is just to tax the upper class to provide amenities to impoverished families. From the child’s perspective in poverty, it is morally just that he is being supplied with this care, as he has been born into a situation that was out of his control. However, this action doesn’t seem just as they’re forfeiting a large part of their income while not committing any infractions for family being taxed. 

Overall, moral justice may be founded in an area of goodwill, but it neglects a few defining factors that make these standards subjective and difficult to uphold.

Merit Justice

Merit justice finds that your life is dependent on your contributions to society. For example, believers of a merit-based world think that the inventor of a useful product should have a better experience than the worker who helps him sell it.

Like moral justice, merit justice isn’t perfect. Most importantly, it doesn’t take into account the poverty cycle. While the idea that your impact on the world should be reciprocated in your quality of life makes sense, this theory assumes that all humans start in equal circumstances. Unfortunately, this is not true. One of the largest factors in quantifying your life opportunities is your education, and those from the upper class have broader access to these sorts of resources. For example, a child born into poverty almost certainly won’t have access to education that the child of a wealthy investor will have. Because of this, we can’t justify a merit system without continuing to perpetuate this cycle of poverty in which your life is determined by the situation that you’re born into.

Overall, it’s challenging to quantify that either of these systems is universally just. They both fail to solve massive flaws, but I feel as if that’ll be present in any structure presented within this field, meaning that nothing will ever be universally just.